Can anyone win? - Page 9

Vydofnir · 2012-07-05, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

What I'm pointing out is planetside 2 should have a means of feeling like we've won, the scale this game is on is going to be awesome and there are going to be tons of people that are dying to be playing this game. I am sure many of you want to be able to 'win' even if its a form of repetitive win, its still that feeling that can be mounted for all time to be looked at.

So my suggestion would be to allow factions to capture all hex's like normal but let's say TR capture ALL and there are no others left, TR can then capture the bio-domes. If the bio-domes are captured then that continent would be reset, resources stay the same but the hex's are neutral again, TR won the first war. Have this on the statistics list so people can flash off their e-peen's later. This will enhance the competitiveness of the factions and the players. Maybe a reward for the winners? And a small buff for the two who lost so that the next war might bring about another winner, let's say NC win, small reward and TR/VS get a buff. It would just make the game so much more.

Capturing all of the hexes on a continent merits an achievement, and I can't imagine the developers not recognizing this accomplishment in-game. However, I'm not sold on the idea that capturing every hex with the exception of the safe zones is any less of a victory than capturing all of them including the safe zones, and I really don't like the idea of a continental reset unless it is absoloutly necessary.

I for one would be interested to see the two losing factions fighting back from their respective warp gates whilst the thinly spread winner scrambles to defend against coordinated assaults on two fronts. If it becomes clear that the two factions are not able to effectively fight back, a reset may be necessary, but I would hate to see any break in the persistent action at all. One of the selling points of this game is the idea that if you capture a base, it's yours until someone comes and takes it from you. I don't see why this logic shouldn't apply to continents as well. Being able to capture warp gates opens up the possibility for factions to be completely unable to fight back, and having a continental reset is essentially just a larger scale match win like in any other FPS. I don't feel like that fits particularly well with the developers' vision of PS2.

Ultimately the thing that turns me off of the idea of having a winner is the fact that it necessitates having losers. If players know that their faction can completely lose on a continent, what is to keep them fighting? I would think that if it became clear that loss was imminent for their faction, many players would be likely to concede, jump ship to another continent/server, and kill time until the inevitable reset levels the playing field. Having a refuge from which to mount a coordinated counter-offensive seems more likely to keep players in the fight, even if their faction isn't doing particularly well at the time.

Anubisstargate · 2012-07-06, 02:39 AM

Nice post

Due to typing this on my phone I'm not going to quote the third paragraph. But in reference to the third paragraph you raised a very good point about most people will concede. Because people will if they know a loss is just around the corner, most people do have no will to fight.

My only suggestion to that would be to reward the defending faction in a big way, extra resources for each base defended, which makes the other factions win so much harder to achieve. This also encourages really long battles because what most people are stragetically thinking with resources is to starve enemies so they have the vehicle advantage. I can tell already those are going to be the most intense battles and very well thought out ones.

With that in mind would you think winning is even possible with that thrown into agenda, it sure looks impossible to even win, which is good, if people know they can win they will seek that, thus encouraging people to keep trying harder and harder to be the best. A lot of new players to the game (due to F2P) will come from other games like CoD, BF and such, with this new playerbase people are coming from games that are based around small wins to come to a game that ... Doesn't win overall? Their ranks and K/D ratio's that they flash their e-peen's over don't exist anymore, so what's to keep them playing? Apart from the immerse battlefield, beautiful graphics and game engine. This game has a lot of variables to its gameplay to offer to people in terms of being being a good MMO and a great FPS. Though its not even so much about the game, its about the people when it comes to winning. MMO players either like PvE or PvP or both. PvE players normally like the storyline from that game and a lot of them like raiding, people like raiding and that comes to wanting to be good at the game. PvPers do that in order to win all the time and be the best. Same with FPS gamers, the vast majority of people play FPS games to be good at them, to win at them and be the best in them.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but do people still play other FPS games and other MMO's? I'm sure they do. Why? Because they have that bigger goal to achieve in the game. Planetside 1 as much as it did have a big playerbase, a lot of died out after 3 years, whether that be through real life problems or whatever. The fact still remains that even though you may or may not realise but you are doing something that you can never truly accomplish. What keeps 90% of people working in their current job? They may be bored and do the same thing over and over but they stay there because they get paid. People like the end result of whatever they do.

Those that don't like the concept of planetside 2 being a winnable game is it because people don't like change? And that's stopping a new playerbase from enjoying a sense of achievement?

DarkChiron · 2012-07-06, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but do people still play other FPS games and other MMO's? I'm sure they do. Why? Because they have that bigger goal to achieve in the game. Planetside 1 as much as it did have a big playerbase, a lot of died out after 3 years, whether that be through real life problems or whatever. The fact still remains that even though you may or may not realise but you are doing something that you can never truly accomplish. What keeps 90% of people working in their current job? They may be bored and do the same thing over and over but they stay there because they get paid. People like the end result of whatever they do.

The MMO's I've never I've never really felt like I 'won'. In EverQuest and WoW, I raided and gathered loot, but I wouldn't say it was a win. I had a great experience and felt accomplished that I was in a raid with my fellows. Loot was the only real thing to come of it. If you think of resources and more controlled bases as 'loot' here it's almost the same thing. Then in a game like UO, you could 'win' by controlling the cities of the PvP realm (Felucia I think but I forget now), but that's practically the same thing as what Planetside 2 is talking about offering now.

Those that don't like the concept of planetside 2 being a winnable game is it because people don't like change? And that's stopping a new playerbase from enjoying a sense of achievement?

I just don't consider it necessary to make the game fun. I believe that outside of fighting the war, pushing and defending territory, and playing with squad mates the game will be meaningful enough for me. From the amount of people who play MMOs with even less meaningful objectives (WoW and the like where no achievement EVER has a meaningful effect on the game world), it would appear many people agree with that idea. But again as I said the modern idea of achievements provides a further goal for people to achieve (which is why most MMOs have them now).

I guess at the end of the day I don't want to see this game try so hard to please everyone that it ends up being this mish mash of half-done ideas that don't really end up satisfying anyone.

A very strong 'win' condition where one team wins and the other 2 loses seems to go against their idea of a persistent world in any way I can consider there being a 'win' that has any meaning. If a 'win' doesn't affect the persistence of the world, and in the end is just the game popping up on the screen "You are winner!", I don't see in what way the Achievements system wouldn't accomplish this.

Crator · 2012-07-06, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

I guess at the end of the day I don't want to see this game try so hard to please everyone that it ends up being this mish mash of half-done ideas that don't really end up satisfying anyone.

No one wants that.

Dloan · 2012-07-06, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

From the amount of people who play MMOs with even less meaningful objectives (WoW and the like where no achievement EVER has a meaningful effect on the game world), it would appear many people agree with that idea.

I would say MMO objectives are even more meaningful. They're all about obtaining *individual* wealth and power. The process even inspired its own term "grinding", which just goes to show you can make people pay to do boring stuff over and over again if they feel the reward at the end is large enough.

MMO's have proven time after time that, even in a simulated world, obtaining wealth and power is a strong reward and motivating factor. To maintain interest MMO makers simply move the goalposts, adding more levels and more uber loot etc.

To keep people playing PS2 after the initial wow factor wears off, you're going to need equally strong motivating factors. PS1 lacked these.

infected · 2012-07-06, 03:56 PM

true for some, also false for others. wow's downfall was the xpacs. wow did change its design with the xpacs it put out. at vanilla you could hold onto your gear for a year and you were progressing based on skill. then the xpacs came and skill was replaced by overpowered gear constantly being introduced. you can't beat it now? just wait a bit til you get more gear and you the content will be a joke. they "moved the goal posts" every 3 months, making your gear and accomplishments feel irrelevant faster than you can attain them. this also came with dumbed down content and a horrible community focused on player's gear score rather than knowledge of the game. what? you don't have this new gear yet? its so easy to get. just farm a bunch of boring easy content and the better gear will be handed to you. player skill was removed from the equation. it was all about being a time sink for that monthly resubscription.

Crator · 2012-07-06, 04:15 PM

This is a pure PvP game which does not have a pay-to-win model. Gear & loot doesn't pertain to PS2 at all....

Vydofnir · 2012-07-06, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

Nice post

Thank you.

With that in mind would you think winning is even possible with that thrown into agenda, it sure looks impossible to even win, which is good, if people know they can win they will seek that, thus encouraging people to keep trying harder and harder to be the best. A lot of new players to the game (due to F2P) will come from other games like CoD, BF and such, with this new playerbase people are coming from games that are based around small wins to come to a game that ... Doesn't win overall? Their ranks and K/D ratio's that they flash their e-peen's over don't exist anymore, so what's to keep them playing? Apart from the immerse battlefield, beautiful graphics and game engine. This game has a lot of variables to its gameplay to offer to people in terms of being being a good MMO and a great FPS. Though its not even so much about the game, its about the people when it comes to winning. MMO players either like PvE or PvP or both. PvE players normally like the storyline from that game and a lot of them like raiding, people like raiding and that comes to wanting to be good at the game. PvPers do that in order to win all the time and be the best. Same with FPS gamers, the vast majority of people play FPS games to be good at them, to win at them and be the best in them.

I see your point, but PS2 is not going to fail or succeed by providing the same MMO or FPS experience that people have come to expect from other games, its success will hinge on what it brings to the table to make itself stand out. When an FPS player wins a match, he gets a message saying he's won and a win on his stats page, but not much else. You still get a "Facility Captured" message in PS2 and that will be a permanent addition to your stats page; the same could be said for point captures and K/D ratios. The thing that sets PS2 apart from other games is the fact that the map doesn't get reset after your victory, you have to mop up the stragglers, fortify your position, and prepare for a potential counterattack.

If you were to capture a whole continent with the exception of the enemies' warp gates, I have no doubt that you will get a "Continent Captured" message, and a nice addition to your stats page. This does not necessitate capturing the enemy footholds and forcing a continental reset, nor does it require providing a bonus to the other factions. In the event that the VS were to push back both the NC and the TR to their respective footholds, the VS would be forced to defend against a concentrated assault on two separate fronts. With that in mind it doesn't seem unlikely to me that the NC and TR would be able to successfully push the VS back without the need for a reset.

The fact that the world is persistent despite your wins and losses is what makes PS2 stand out from the rest of the crowd. Imagine how great it would feel to be a part of a coordinated offensive that pushes both enemy factions all the way to their warp gates. Now imagine how much greater that feeling would be if it was you who had been beaten back to your foothold when you started that offensive. That is not a feeling that can be provided by any MMO or FPS that I know of, and that is what makes PS2 special. It's clear to me that the developers are trying to make PS2 about more than just how many times you win or lose, they are making it about what those wins and losses mean in the context of a persistent world.

Those that don't like the concept of planetside 2 being a winnable game is it because people don't like change? And that's stopping a new playerbase from enjoying a sense of achievement?

Again I see where you're coming from, but I am very much against the idea of a hard win (more accurately the hard losses that it would entail), and I have never played PS1. In fact I have a deep-rooted disdain for the MMO genre, and I haven't really played an FPS online in more than half a decade. PS2 has done the unthinkable: It has turned me from someone with an entirely cynical outlook on online gaming into someone who is drooling over an MMOFPS! They were able to do this because they are commited to making their game a truly unique experience unlike any MMO or FPS on the market today. The persistence that comes with a lack of instancing and a lack of map resets is a big part of what makes PS2 appealing to many.

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

A very strong 'win' condition where one team wins and the other 2 loses seems to go against their idea of a persistent world in any way I can consider there being a 'win' that has any meaning. If a 'win' doesn't affect the persistence of the world, and in the end is just the game popping up on the screen "You are winner!", I don't see in what way the Achievements system wouldn't accomplish this.

I couldn't agree more. An achievement system allows for winners without necessitating that there be losers in any sense beyond the fact that they were not the winner. Allowing the capture of warp gates seems like it does more to punish the losers than it does to reward the victors. Losing access to an entire continent because my faction lost its foothold, and having to wait for the other two factions to wrap it up so the continent can reset sounds like an awful lot of punishment just for not being on the winning team. It would be like being temporarily banned for losing. Give the winners their achievement, but don't deny me access to game content because my faction didn't win.

Dloan · 2012-07-06, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Gear & loot doesn't pertain to PS2 at all....

Not in the traditional MMO sense, but consider how SOE plan to make money on this game. Haven't they said that levelled players are likely to be 20% more powerful than those who aren't? Won't they be more flexible? A different type of power. Aren't resources from capturing territory just another form of loot?

Crator · 2012-07-06, 08:12 PM

^^^ Hard to tell about that right now. I, unfortunately, have not played the game yet. Beta, soon....

But yes, you're right in a way. It really all depends how the resources flow and what they actually give you I guess... I don't see how you will feel irrelevant when new stuff comes out. Well, not in the same sense as you would in WoW at least....

Otleaz · 2012-07-06, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dloan

Not in the traditional MMO sense, but consider how SOE plan to make money on this game. Haven't they said that levelled players are likely to be 20% more powerful than those who aren't? Won't they be more flexible? A different type of power. Aren't resources from capturing territory just another form of loot?

No. Loot is a psychological thing. You can't just say it is loot and make people happy. If you want to capture the feeling other MMOs give you, you need to design it in a certain way.

Zidane · 2012-07-06, 08:31 PM

Short answer... technically no

Antivide · 2012-07-07, 04:05 AM

If there is no tangible victory condition there's nothing that separates this game from a glorified TDM match.

The issue is the endgame, there is none. There's no sense of accomplishment other than "Oh look.. we took bio-lab #5".

That's an issue SOE will have to figure out.

Furber · 2012-07-07, 05:11 AM

It's not an issue at all, it's one of the core aspects of Planetside that makes it the incredible game it is/will be. One really has to experience the persistence to understand the beauty of it. Let's try to wait for beta before we try to change one of the most important mechanics of this game.

Klockan · 2012-07-07, 09:51 AM

How is the world persistent if there are world resets? Isn't it better to not take away all the territory people earned and instead let the opposition try to take it back through hard work?